Real time expert dialog service

ABSTRACT

Methods and systems provide for establishment of online dialogs between a person and a user of an online community where those people are not necessarily familiar with each others areas of expertise or interests. The methods and systems can categorize a dialog topic received from the person, and determine, from categorization of users, a selection of users of a system to receive the dialog topic. That selection can be further narrowed according to user availability and/or ranking determinations, as well as an initial subject matter test posed to the selection of users. Judging the acceptability of the users&#39; responses can help determine subject matter expertise in an area relevant to the proposed topic.

PRIORITY CLAIM

This application claims benefit as a Continuation of application Ser.No. 12/125,691, filed May 22, 2008 the entire contents of which ishereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein, under 35U.S.C. §120. The applicant hereby rescinds any disclaimer of claim scopein the parent application or the prosecution history thereof and advisesthe USPTO that the claims in this application may be broader than anyclaim in the parent application.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention generally relates to online forums, and morespecifically to forums where users can obtain information relating toquestions that they pose from others who respond, if they desire to.

BACKGROUND

Currently Yahoo! provides forums where a first user can post a questionthat can be read by an audience, and members of the audience can respondto answer the question. The audience can rank the responses, and userswith highly-ranked responses accumulate points evidencing theirparticipation in the forums. Improvements and extensions to systems ofthis sort are desirable.

SUMMARY

Aspects include a method of initiating an interactive dialogue in anonline community, which comprises receiving a topic suggestion from afirst person, and categorizing the topic suggestion into a subjectmatter category. The method also includes posing a test related to thesubject matter category to a subset of users of the online community whopotentially have expertise in the subject matter category, receivingresponses to the test, and determining from which users an acceptableresponse was received. Then, the person who provided the topicsuggestions is connected in the method to one or more users whosubmitted an acceptable response, in order to facilitate a dialog.Thereafter, the method also comprises providing a capability for thefirst person and the one or more users to determine collectively whetherto publish electronically a transcript of the dialog. In some aspects,dialog participants can individually decide whether to approvepublication of the dialog.

Such aspects also can include ranking users of the online community forexpertise in the subject matter category, and dialogs can be establishedbetween dialog topic proposers and highly ranked users. Ranking can bebased on other content generated by users, including other previouslycommitted dialogs that have been rated by others. Other aspects caninclude a facility for searching previously published dialogs andallowing rating of them, as well as other commentary.

The subject matter test can be selected either by a system facilitatingthe online community, or by the person proposing the dialogic topic, andeither the person or the system determines characteristics of anacceptable result.

Still other aspects can include providing a capability for one or moreusers receiving a proposed dialog topic to pose a subject matterexpertise test to the person proposing the dialog topic, prior toconnecting.

Still further aspects can include categorizing users into subject mattercategories, reflecting one or more of expertise and interests of suchusers. Then, methods can include determining possible users to a givendialog topic based on such user categorization. Such possible users canbe further narrowed by determination of present availability orwillingness to receive topics, as well user rankings, and/or a subjectmatter test.

Any such methods can be embodied in instructions stored on computerreadable media that can be used to configure one or more computers toimplement the methods. After storage of such instructions on thatcomputer readable media, that computer readable media is an article ofmanufacture. Such methods can be implemented as a service among a numberof services provided through a web site or another information deliverymeans that can allow exchange of necessary information, such as dialogtopics. For example, a service such as Skype or another suitable Voiceover IP service, coupled with Text to Speech functionality may be usedfor interfacing users together to form dialogs.

For example, such a system for providing an online dialog service cancomprise an interface element operable for receiving a topic suggestionelectronically from a first person, a categorizer operable fordetermining a category for the topic from a plurality of categoriesavailable to the categorizer, and a selector operable for selectingusers of the online community having expertise in the category. Thesystem can also comprise a tester operable for posing an initial subjectmatter test in the category to at least some of the selected users anddetermining from which selected users an acceptable response wasreceived, and a dialog initiator operable for connecting the firstperson and one or more of the selected users who provided acceptableresponses. The system also can comprise a dialog recorder for recordingthe dialog, and an interface element operable for allowing conclusion ofthe dialog and posting of the dialog for online availability.

Further articles of manufacture can be created according to methodaspects disclosed herein, and can comprise articles of manufacturestoring dialogs created according to these methods.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

For a fuller understanding of aspects and examples disclosed herein,reference is made to the accompanying drawings in the followingdescription.

FIG. 1 illustrates a steps of a method for providing real time dialogueinitiation functionality;

FIG. 2 illustrates an arrangement comprising a service for providingreal-time dialogue functionality to users of the service and others;

FIGS. 3 a-3 c illustrate the method is for identifying its users of theservice, who may be appropriate candidates for a given real-timedialogue topic;

FIG. 4 illustrates aspects of a method for allowing franking and readinginformation to be recorded for published dialogs;

FIG. 5 illustrates sources of information that can be used to rank usersof the service in determining whether to provide a given user anopportunity to participate in a given online dialogue;

FIG. 6 It illustrates a method for verifying user subject matterexpertise;

FIG. 7 illustrates another method for verifying user subject matterexpertise; and

FIG. 8 illustrates a method for providing search capability and displayof dialogs that may be responsive to a particular search.

FIG. 9 illustrates example components of a computer that can be used forinterfacing a person with a service according to the description; and

FIG. 10 illustrates example components of a server computer that can beused in providing services according to the description.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The following description is presented to enable a person of ordinaryskill in the art to make and use various aspects of the inventions.Descriptions of specific techniques, implementations and applicationsare provided only as examples. Various modifications to the examplesdescribed herein may be apparent to those skilled in the art, and thegeneral principles defined herein may be applied to other examples andapplications.

The following relates to examples and aspects of providing a capabilityof initiating category specific real-time dialogs between a personposting a dialogue topic and one or more of a plurality of known expertsin that topic area. These aspects and examples may further involvetracking or otherwise recording the dialogue taking place and uponcompletion of the dialogue allowing the participants in the dialogue todecide whether the dialogue should be available to the public at largefor searching, rating, and other commentary. A still further aspect caninclude that users participating in dialogs may receive ratings fromother users based on dialogs published in a particular category, andthus can achieve higher stature, gaining preference and ranking forengaging in further dialogs in that category. Also, because carrying ona successful real-time dialog about a particular subject is made easierwhen the dialog participants are familiar with the subject, connecting aperson to a user knowledgeable in the subject is helpful, and an initialsubject matter test can be used in identifying a participant for aparticular dialog.

In this description, it is generally provided that a person, who may ormay not be a regular user of the site or service providing suchreal-time dialogue capability, may propose a dialogue topic to the siteor service, which can function to identify potential users known to thesite or service, who are willing to engage in real time dialogs and whohave subject matter expertise in one or more categories related to thetopic posed by the person. Thus, the following description, for ease ofreference, uses the term “person” to refer to a person posing a dialoguetopic, while the term “user” refers to a person who is known to the siteor service and can be selected or offered an opportunity to engage in adialogue with the person.

To start with, FIG. 1 illustrates aspects of a method 100, which may beemployed to accomplish real-time dialogue initiation according toaspects described herein. Method 100 provides an overview to introducethese aspects and further specificity and detail concerning theseaspects is described in further detail herein. Method 100 begins withreceiving (105) a suggested topic for a dialogue, such as receiving thetopic through a text entry field of a web browser interface.

At step 110, the topic is categorized. Its categorization can beimplicit from a context in which the topic was received, for example, orcan be determined by textual analysis. For example, a person submittinga topic for reception may currently be browsing in a portion of awebsite relating to a particular category. Alternatively, oradditionally, a category can be determined from the content of thesuggested topic. For example, a search algorithm can be used to identifyone or more known categories that relate to certain words contained inthe suggested topic. For example, if the suggested topic included theword, “Plato”, then the categorization logic may categorize thesuggested topic into a philosophy category. By example of a furtheralternative, the person submitting the suggested topic may be presentedwith a menu from which one or more categories can be selected.

The method 100 continues with identifying 115 one or more users known tothe service having expertise in the category of the suggested topic.Various methods, aspects, and examples for identifying such users willbe described with respect to further figures herein.

Method 100 continues with connecting 130 the identified the user orusers to the person who originally submitted the suggested dialoguetopic. Method 100 continues with recording the dialogue as itprogresses. For example, a server may record (135) the text that eachuser types as the dialogue progresses. Since in these examples thedialogue is occurring in real time, the dialogue would be expected tocomprise text offered by both parties potentially in an alternatingfashion. The dialogue may continue for some time. When the person andthe user or users engaged in the dialogue determine to end it, each ofthe person and the user or users is provided an opportunity to decidewhether or not the dialogue should be committed 140 for publication.

It is preferred herein that each of the person and the user or users canindependently determine whether or not the dialogue should be committedfor publication. If any of them decide that the dialogue should not bepublished, then the dialogue would not be made available for publicviewing. Thus, each participant both has an incentive to produce aquality dialog while also being able to prevent publication of a dialogthat the participant feels does not adequately reflect that participantsexpertise, or is otherwise objectionable. If the dialogue is determinedto be committed for publication, then method 100 includes adding 150 thedialogue to a library of dialogs available online

Thus at a high level, it can be discerned that two or more people canengage in a real-time dialogue facilitated by a service. The way inwhich users are determined to participate in the dialogue is a topic offurther explanation herein. The contents of that dialogue can berecorded, and the two or more people participating in that dialog candetermine whether or not they would wish that dialogue to be published.

In this context, FIG. 2 illustrates an arrangement where a service 205can facilitate the method 100 of FIG. 1 between a person (P1)communicating from computer 240 a and users, respectively identified asU1 through Un. Each of the users communicates using devices respectivelyidentified as cell phone 240 b, a smart phone 240 c, and a computer 240n. The devices illustrated to facilitate such communication in thearrangement of FIG. 2 are exemplary and other devices can be used in thefurtherance of examples and methods presented herein. For example, it isgenerally contemplated in one example that a dialogue will primarily betext-based; however, speech recognition also could be used to convertspeech to text during a dialogue.

The service 205 can be implemented using a variety of processes,examples of which are illustrated in FIG. 2. For reasons that will bemade clearer herein, service 205 can include a Web crawler process 210,a dialogue server 215, a Web interface process 220, a databasecontaining user information 225, a user categorization process 230, auser ranker process 235, and an external website interface process 236.

Continuing with FIG. 3 a, a first example of further steps to identifyusers that may participate in a dialogue is provided. Uponcategorization of a topic, method 300 includes accessing 316 a usercategorization, for example, user database 225 can include informationconcerning in what categories users of service 205 have expertise. Forexample, some users may have expertise relating to philosophy whileother users may have expertise to history, the arts, popular music,technology or any other conceivable topic or some topic. Suchcategorization can be broad and/or more specific, in that if many usersidentify with a given category, then that category may be subdividedinto finer categories, and depending on the degree to which thesuggested dialogue topic can be categorized, an output from step 316 caninclude identification of users in a broader or a narrower category.Although expertise is a primary concern, interest in a given categoryalso is of concern, and can factor into categorization of users.

Once users in a category relevant to the dialogue topic are identified,those users can be ranked 318 amongst themselves as to their expertisein that category. User ranking can be based on a large variety andnumber of criteria, including aspects such as whether previous dialogsin the same category were ranked highly by other users of the system,that a user has a job in a related field, or even information availableon the Internet in general can be searched and used to determine auser's expertise in that category. Further aspects of ranking will beaddressed herein.

Method 300 may proceed with determining 310 availability of one or moreusers determined to rank highly. For example, not all users will beonline at the same time, or users may also provide an indication thatthey are not presently willing to receive suggested dialogue topics.Alternatively, a determination of availability can proceed by sending asuggested dialogue topic to those users determined to rank highly andthen a message containing that suggested dialogue topic would simply notreach unavailable users. In either case, an initial selection of highlyranked users can be further narrowed by a determination or by apractical implementation of an availability determination.

Method 300 thereafter proceeds with available highly ranked users byposing 313 a subject matter test to such users. Such a test provides aninitial hurdle to verify subject matter expertise on the part of a userand can be implemented in a variety of ways, examples of which aredisclosed herein. Categorization of users can be used to establish aninterest level and provide an initial estimate of expertise. The hurdletest can verify such expertise. Users provide responses to the test,which are received 314 by service 205. The acceptability of theseresponses is determined at step 315. Such determination of acceptabilitycan be performed by the person who proposed the suggested dialogue topicor alternatively can be automated by the system, as described in furtherdetail herein. Once one or more acceptable responses have been received,a user or users can be selected to participate in the dialogue with theperson.

A further step that can be conducted is a reverse qualification test 325that can be performed on behalf of the user or users selected, and whichcan test a subject matter expertise level of the person suggesting thatdialogue topic. For example, some users may desire to participate indialogs only with persons who have a certain background in the category,such as experts, while other users may be willing to engage in dialogswith anyone. Once one or more available users have been identified andvetted by the method 300, the method of 100 can continue at theconnection step 130.

Now turning to FIG. 3 b, a variation method 305 of method 300 ispresented. Method 305 can begin from step 110 of FIG. 1, and alsoincludes the step of accessing 316 user categorization information, aswell as a step of determining availability 310 of users in that categoryor categories determined relevance for the dialogue topic proposed.

The method 305 differs from method 300, in that ranking information isnot accessed, and instead available users are directly posed a test ofsubject matter competence. Responses are received 314 from the availableusers who were given the test and acceptability of answers received aredetermined 315. The step of reverse qualification 335 also can beconducted in method 305. Method 305 thus illustrates an example, whereranking information may not be maintained or where it is, for example,it may be determined that a category for the proposed dialogue topic hasa small enough number of users that a ranking of such users isunnecessary.

However, it is generally contemplated that ranking information should beused to select users of service 205, who are to receive an opportunityto engage in the dialogue. This is at least because such ranking wouldbe considered a reward for participation.

Now turning to FIG. 3 c, a further method 310 is illustrated. Here, usercategorization information may be accessed 316. However such access isnot mandatory. Method 310 continues with accessing ranking information318 for users of service 205. Generally, this ranking information wouldbe category specific, but any example herein allows for rankinginformation to be used more broadly and among a plurality of categoriesor even at a level of the entire service 205 itself. In this example,more highly ranked users would be first selected for an availabilitydetermination 320, and if such user or users were unavailable, then, anext user or users in rank order may be selected and the availabilitydetermination 320 repeated. Once a user or users is determined to beavailable, i.e. available to receive proposed dialogue topics, reversequalification step 335 may be provided, and thereafter method 100 maycontinue with connection step 130.

The method is illustrated in FIGS. 3 a, 3 b, and 3 c illustrate examplesof how a user or users may be identified as users who are willing andable to engage in a real-time dialogue with the person about a giventopic. In a service with a large number of users ranking users bycategory, additionally posing a subject matter test as a prerequisitefor engaging any given real-time dialogue is a preferred method, asillustrated in FIG. 3 a. These steps need not be performed sequentially,in that for example, highly ranked users can be categorized orcategorized users can be ranked, etc.

The reverse qualification step 335 may be implemented in a number ofways including for example, allowing users of service 205 to specify adesire to receive one or more of the beginner, intermediate, andadvanced conversation topics. Persons proposing dialogue topics may thenbe asked to self identify a level of dialogue sought and this then mayprovide an additional layer of screening to properly match a personposing a dialogue topic to a user with whom that person may have asatisfying dialogue.

Now turning to FIG. 4, additional aspects of how dialogs may be ratedand how such dialogue ratings may influence user rankings is described.As described with respect to method 100, the person and the user orusers who have engaged in a given dialogue may commit that dialogue tobe published. Method 400 may begin with a step of receiving a searchquery 405. Such a search query may be submitted by a searcher desiringto identify a committed dialogue available through the service 205relevant for terms specified in the submitted search query. Service 205can access 410 a library of committed dialogs to identify 420 one ormore relevant dialogs, and display 415 indicators of those identifieddialogs to the searcher. For example, such indicators may includeabstracts of the dialogue, which may include the original proposeddialogue topic, user names that participated in the dialogue, as well asa ranking of the dialogue based on ranking information received up tothat point. The service 205 may allow 425 the searcher to select one ormore of the dialogs indicated. The searcher may then provide feedback onthe dialogs reviewed, which is accepted 430 by service 205.

In some particular examples, service 205 may query the searcher forfeedback in one or more areas, for example. The service 205 may querythe searcher for her opinion about specific aspects 435 of the dialogue.

Such specific aspects may include accuracy, professionalism orformalism, uniqueness of contribution, and whether the searcher foundthe dialogue to be informative. Other rating aspects that the service205 may ask of the searcher is a feedback rating for each person anduser who participated in the dialogue. Although it is generallypreferred to consider real time dialogs as contemplated herein to be ajoint contribution of all those who participated in the dialogue, it maybe the case that one or more of the participants in a given dialogueshould be given more or less credit for it. Also service 205 may solicitgeneral comments 425 from the searcher to further characterize thecontent of that dialogue. Such comments may be made available to otherswho search for dialogs available through service 205.

The ranking information compiled in method 400 can be used as onecomponent of the overall ranking of the user in a particular category,as well as more broadly in the service 205 as a whole. FIG. 5illustrates components of information that may be used in developing aranking of a user in one or more categories available on the system. Forexample, service 205 may be one service of a number of servicesavailable through a particular service provider. Thus, the serviceprovider may have other information on a user that can be helpful fordetermining categories in which that user has expertise. Suchinformation available from the service provider is presented byproprietary data 510. For example Yahoo!, Inc. provides a forum forgroup discussions, organized by topic. Information about users'contributions in such groups or forums may factor into their respectiverankings for the purpose of establishment of real time dialogs in agiven subject matter area. By further example, Yahoo!, Inc. provides jobsearch functionality as well as job posting functionality; informationabout a user's job postings or other professional activity informationavailable through such functionality also can be used.

Of course, user provided preferences 515 also can be considered and thata person may desire to become more involved in a given category and islearning in that category but may not yet be considered a subject matterexpert. Searching of publicly available information such as informationavailable on the Internet also can be used to identify subject matterexpertise of users of service 205.

Additionally, external sites can provide information useful indetermining rankings via prearranged interfaces, via XML or pre-set dataformats, and the like. For example, professional networking sites suchas LinkedIn can provide employment information, degree information andthe like about users of LinkedIn, who also are users of service 205.Other social networking sites such Facebook and MySpace also can besources of information useful in ranking users of service 205. Thesediffering sources of information can be blended together in any of avariety of ways to arrive at a ranking for a user in a particularcategory. And, in cases where a category has one or more subcategories,and where particular information is available, users may be givendifferent rankings for those subcategories. For example, a user may begiven a first ranking in art history and a different ranking in aparticular style of art.

As disclosed above, ranking information for users can be a usefulcomponent in a process for identifying one or more users with expertisein a given real-time dialogue topic. Another technique that can be usedadditionally is the technique of posing a subject matter test to one ormore users who may have expertise in a given category, and thereforewould be candidates for participation in a given dialogue. FIG. 6illustrates one alternative method 600 for posing such a subject mattertest to one or more users. In the exemplary method 600, service 205,based on categorization of a proposed dialogue topic, can identify asubject matter question from a database of subject matter questions, andan answer to that question. In one example, the question can be posed tothe one or more candidate users via the Web interface in amultiple-choice format, wherein a correct answer is interpose amongincorrect answers. This multiple-choice method has the benefit ofsimplicity in that the subject matter test can be automated and answersare not ambiguous.

A further example approach to a subject matter test is presented withrespect to FIG. 7. FIG. 7 illustrates steps of method 700 wherein theperson proposing a dialogue topic is queried 710 by service 205 for asubject matter question relevant to the proposed dialogue topic (710),and optionally an answer (715) to the question. Service 205 thentransmits 720 the question provided by the person to one or morecandidate users. Service 205 receives 725 responses from at least someof the users presented with the question. Now, depending upon the natureof the response, service 205 can ask 730 the person proposing thatdialogue topic, whether each response received is correct or incorrect,or even whether the person prefers one response to another.Alternatively service 205 can automatically compare responses receivedby users with a response provided by the person proposing that dialoguetopic. Then, a user's selection or determination of correctness of oneor more responses can be used in determining which user or users shouldbe connected to the person proposing a dialogue topic.

Since one intended result of service 205 facilitation of real timedialogue initiation is a compiled library of committed and categorizeddialogs, FIG. 8 illustrates steps of method 800, which may be used toaccess such compiled dialogs. In step 805 service 205 can receive adialogue search query, and using that search query, can search 810 adialogue library. Service 205 identifies 815 potentially responsivedialogs, obtains 820 rankings for those dialogs, and selects highlyranked dialogs for presentation 830 to the searcher. When such dialoguesare compiled into a library, the library can be stored on a computerreadable medium, such that the computer readable medium becomes anarticle of manufacture created according to the dialog-related methodsherein.

FIG. 9 illustrates components of a computer system that can be used toimplement computer system 240 a. Such a computer system can include akeyboard 920, mouse 921, joystick 922 as examples of user input devicesthat provide input to user interface 915. User interface 915communicates with CPUs/chipset 905 which provide processingfunctionality and can receive data from nonvolatile memory 950 which caninclude a solid-state or a magnetic disk drive for example. Userinterface 915 also can communicate with a display 940. Working memory925, such as DRAM, also can be used by CPU 905 to store informationcurrently being used. FIG. 10 illustrates a computer 1000 that may beused alone or in combination with other computers for hosting processesimplementing service 205. Computer 1000 also may comprise one or moreCPUs and a chipset collectively labeled 1005, which may communicate witha main memory 1025, as well as with a nonvolatile memory 1050 othermemory or storage available to computer 1001 includes Network AttachedStorage (NAS) 1060. Any or all of the processes illustrated in FIG. 2for service 205 can be implemented in one or more computers 1000, or asthreads in such computers.

Various pre-existing communications facilities and other functionality,like web functionality, can be used to implement methods according tothese examples. For example, a service such as Skype or another suitableVoice over IP service, coupled with Text to Speech functionality may beused for interfacing users together to form dialogs.

Code for these processes can be stored in computer readable media, suchas solid-state drives, hard drives, CD-ROMs and other optical storagemeans, transiently in nonvolatile memories as well as embodied incommunication signals. Dialogs also can be saved or otherwise recordedto any of a variety of computer readable media or otherwise stored in adatabase for searching and subsequent retrieval

The Web interface process 220 of FIG. 2 can be used for interfacing withthe person proposing a dialogue topic as well as any user of the service205 that may be a potential participant in such a dialogue. For example,web interface process 220 may serve web pages comprising appropriateinterface information as well as other information, such asadvertisements. The processes illustrated in FIG. 2 may also beimplemented as any number of sub processes modules or functions asdeemed appropriate for a particular implementation. The devicesillustrated in FIG. 2 being used by the person and the users areexemplary and other communication devices can be used in systems andmethods according to these disclosures. Programming for implementingmethods according to above-described examples can be distributed amongone or more computers connected in a network, which collectively provideservice 205 and potentially other services to remote users. Wheninformation is transferred or provided over a network or anothercommunications connection (either hardwired, wireless, or a combinationof hardwired or wireless) to a computer, the computer uses thatconnection as a computer-readable medium. Thus, by way of example, andnot limitation, computer-readable media can also comprise a network ordata links which can be used to carry or store desired program codemeans in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structuresand which can be accessed by a general purpose or special purposecomputer.

Computer-executable instructions comprise, for example, instructions anddata which cause or otherwise configure a general purpose computer,special purpose computer, or special purpose processing device toperform a certain function or group of functions. The computerexecutable instructions may be, for example, binaries, intermediateformat instructions such as assembly language, or source code.

The examples presented herein provide illustrations of ways in whichreal time category specific dialogs can be facilitated by an onlineservice. The various examples presented combinations of usercategorization, user of ranking, subject matter testing, and useravailability determinations to arrive at a selection of one or moreusers to provide an opportunity to engage in a dialogue on the proposedtopic. Different implementations may implement different combinations ofthese aspects or combinations of subsets of these aspects. In alarge-scale system, with many categories and many users, it iscontemplated that a categorization or ranking of users, followed by asubject matter test allows both assurances of subject matter expertiseand adequate rewards for participation in creation of committed dialogs.Further by providing each participant in a dialogue with an option toallow or prevent publication of such dialogue, it is contemplated thateach participant then would have an interest in the overall quality ofthe dialogue. Many variations and enhancements to the examples andaspects disclosed herein will be apparent to those of ordinary skill inthe art in view of these disclosures, and all such variations andenhancements should therefore be considered within the scope of theappended claims and their equivalents.

1. A method of initiating an interactive dialog in an online community,comprising: capturing a dialog, which has not been published to anonline community, that occurred between a first user of the onlinecommunity and one or more particular second users of the onlinecommunity; wherein the dialog was carried out over a network using adialog mechanism provided to the online community; providing to each ofthe first user and the one or more particular second users, over thenetwork, a mechanism by which to indicate approval to publish thedialog; and publishing the dialog electronically to the online communityonly upon determining that, through use of the mechanism, each of thefirst user and the one or more particular second users decided thedialog should be committed for electronic publication; wherein themethod is performed by one or more computing devices.
 2. The method ofclaim 1, further comprising: prior to capturing the dialog, receiving atopic suggestion from the first user; identifying, from the onlinecommunity, one or more second users based, at least in part, on thetopic suggestion; and selecting the one or more particular second usersfrom among the one or more second users.
 3. The method of claim 2,further comprising: posing, to the one or more second users, a testrelated to the topic suggestion; receiving responses to the test; andselecting the one or more particular second users, from the one or moresecond users, based on from whom an acceptable response to the test wasreceived.
 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior tocapturing the dialog, determining participants in the dialog, whereindetermining participants in the dialog includes: posing, to the firstuser, a test related to the topic suggestion; receiving, from the firstuser, a response to the test; and providing, to one or more secondusers, the response to the test; wherein the dialog is facilitatedbetween the first user and the one or more particular second users, ofthe one or more second users, that determined the response to the testwas acceptable.
 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising, prior tocapturing the dialog, determining participants in the dialog, whereindetermining participants in the dialog includes: receiving, from thefirst user, a level of expertise associated with the topic suggestion,and identifying one or more second users based, at least in part, on thelevel of expertise associated with the topic suggestion; wherein the oneor more particular second users are from the one or more second users.6. The method of claim 5, further comprising, prior to capturing thedialog, determining participants in the dialog, wherein determiningparticipants in the dialog includes: receiving from the one or moresecond users an indication of a willingness to participate in topics ata particular level of expertise, and identifying one or more secondusers based at least in part on each corresponding indication ofwillingness to participate in the dialog topic; wherein the one or moreparticular second users are from the one or more second users.
 7. Themethod of claim 1, further comprising, prior to capturing the dialog,determining participants in the dialog, wherein determining participantsin the dialog includes: ranking users of the online community forexpertise in dialog topics; identifying one or more second users based,at least in part, on a ranking associated with each of the one or moresecond users; and wherein the one or more particular second users arefrom the one or more second users.
 8. The method of claim 7, wherein theranking is based on other online content generated by each ranked user.9. The method of claim 2, further comprising providing a facility forthe first user to generate the test and determine the acceptableresponses from among the responses received.
 10. The method of claim 1,further comprising querying each of the first person and the one or moreparticular second users for approval to publish the dialog.
 11. Anon-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more sequences ofinstructions, wherein processing the one or more sequences ofinstructions by one or more processors causes: capturing a dialog, whichhas not been published to an online community, that occurred between afirst user of the online community and one or more particular secondusers of the online community; wherein the dialog was carried out over anetwork using a dialog mechanism provided to the online community;providing to each of the first user and the one or more particularsecond users, over the network, a mechanism by which to indicateapproval to publish the dialog; and publishing the dialog electronicallyto the online community only upon determining that, through use of themechanism, each of the first user and the one or more particular secondusers decided the dialog should be committed for electronic publication;wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices. 12.The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, furthercomprising instructions for: prior to capturing the dialog, receiving atopic suggestion from the first user; identifying, from the onlinecommunity, one or more second users based, at least in part, on thetopic suggestion; and selecting the one or more particular second usersfrom among the one or more second users.
 13. The non-transitorycomputer-readable medium of claim 12, further comprising instructionsfor: posing, to the one or more second users, a test related to thetopic suggestion; receiving responses to the test; and selecting the oneor more particular second users, from the one or more second users,based on from whom an acceptable response to the test was received. 14.The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, furthercomprising instructions for, prior to capturing the dialog, determiningparticipants in the dialog; wherein determining participants in thedialog includes: posing, to the first user, a test related to the topicsuggestion; receiving, from the first user, a response to the test; andproviding, to one or more second users, the response to the test;wherein the dialog is facilitated between the first user and the one ormore particular second users, of the one or more second users, thatdetermined the response to the test was acceptable.
 15. Thenon-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, further comprisinginstructions for, prior to capturing the dialog, determiningparticipants in the dialog; wherein determining participants in thedialog includes: receiving, from the first user, a level of expertiseassociated with the topic suggestion, and identifying one or more secondusers based, at least in part, on the level of expertise associated withthe topic suggestion; wherein the one or more particular second usersare from the one or more second users.
 16. The non-transitorycomputer-readable medium of claim 15, further comprising instructionsfor, prior to capturing the dialog, determining participants in thedialog, wherein determining participants in the dialog includes:receiving from the one or more second users an indication of awillingness to participate in topics at a particular level of expertise,and identifying one or more second users based at least in part on eachcorresponding indication of willingness to participate in the dialogtopic; wherein the one or more particular second users are from the oneor more second users.
 17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium ofclaim 11, further comprising instructions for, prior to capturing thedialog, determining participants in the dialog, wherein determiningparticipants in the dialog includes: ranking users of the onlinecommunity for expertise in dialog topics; identifying one or more secondusers based, at least in part, on a ranking associated with each of theone or more second users; and wherein the one or more particular secondusers are from the one or more second users.
 18. The non-transitorycomputer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the ranking is based onother online content generated by each ranked user.
 19. Thenon-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 12, further comprisinginstructions for providing a facility for the first user to generate thetest and determine the acceptable responses from among the responsesreceived.
 20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11,further comprising instructions for querying each of the first personand the one or more particular second users for approval to publish thedialog.